Why do you believe that there is a god?

[so nyuh shi dae]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Regardless of what you feel is "typical," that is not what I asked you.
The answer is yes. The Big Bang Theory is science's explanation of the creation of the universe, by any definition.

The word "creation" was used in a topic that was discussing god. The religious view of how the universe began is called "creation".

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

But what I am doing is pointing out how athiests always want religious people to prove their beliefs, then turn around and put their faith in things that also cannot be proven.

Have you ever read scientific literature? The idea isn't that you're proving a claim but that you're supporting it with evidence. Atheists don't place faith in anything. For any scientific theory, there is empirical data that supports that theory.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by kix4kix

You are so bent on arguing dude, I am was here just to debate, but you are obviously intent on skewing my words, Where did I say any of the stuff I wrote proved anything at all???????????
Keep posting your gifs and essays. 

If you're here to debate then debate. 




Don't get jumpy when I reply to every line you've written.




I didn't skew your words. I addressed each line of text you wrote.




Where did you say this? 




When you asserted it with NO evidence and made fallacious arguments. 




if you assert something, back it up. Stop saying things you can't support. Otherwise you have no need to support. them




I'm not saying you can't entertain "interesting" THEORIES, but if you can't test them and support them with evidence then your theory fails because the claims being made do not stand on their own.




Thats your problem. 




And yes, I will continue to post my "essays"...calling them long responses and trivializing responses that actually take the time to address everything you said is somehow looked down upon. 




So much for your honesty of "debating"




Stop being so damn emotional and stick up for what you believe in. 




Don't get mad at me because your conjectures don't have any proof or you can't support them. You're the one that suggests them. Not me. 

 

[jaysrcrak]

Actually Hubble's law states that:

the rate at which a galaxy is observed to recede is directly proportional to its distance from us; that is, the farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it travels away from us.

Hubble's law may be correct but the equation to express this law the Hubble constant has proven time and time again to be incorrect. In fact, even today there is no consensus as to the correct values.



AUTHOR PUBLICATION YEAR HUBBLE CONSTANT UNIVERSE AGE

(billions of years)

Hubble 1929 500* 2

Harwit 1973 75 9

Pasachoff 1992 36 18

Gribbin 1993 26 25

Freedman 1994 65-99 8-12

Hawking 1994 43 15

Kuhn 1994 54 12

Matthews 1994 80 8

Ross 1994 38 17

Schmidt 1994 64-82 10-12

Wolff 1994 50 13

MacRobert 2003 71 13.7



And old Lawrence Krauss is throwing his guess into the hat as well. The Hubble constant seems to change from year to year.


Not only that, but it has proven time and time again that redshifts are not neccesarily attributable to the Doppler effect.


American astrophysicist Halton Arp, who worked with Edwin Hubble himself, found what he calls “enigmatic and disturbing cases,

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

THIS is perfect. Thank you.

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Actually Hubble's law states that:

the rate at which a galaxy is observed to recede is directly proportional to its distance from us; that is, the farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it travels away from us.

Hubble's law may be correct but the equation to express this law the Hubble constant has proven time and time again to be incorrect. In fact, even today there is no consensus as to the correct values.



AUTHOR PUBLICATION YEAR HUBBLE CONSTANT UNIVERSE AGE

(billions of years)

Hubble 1929 500* 2

Harwit 1973 75 9

Pasachoff 1992 36 18

Gribbin 1993 26 25

Freedman 1994 65-99 8-12

Hawking 1994 43 15

Kuhn 1994 54 12

Matthews 1994 80 8

Ross 1994 38 17

Schmidt 1994 64-82 10-12

Wolff 1994 50 13

MacRobert 2003 71 13.7



And old Lawrence Krauss is throwing his guess into the hat as well. The Hubble constant seems to change from year to year.


Not only that, but it has proven time and time again that redshifts are not neccesarily attributable to the Doppler effect.


American astrophysicist Halton Arp, who worked with Edwin Hubble himself, found what he calls “enigmatic and disturbing cases,

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by JaysRcrak

Actually Hubble's law states that:

the rate at which a galaxy is observed to recede is directly proportional to its distance from us; that is, the farther away a galaxy is from us, the faster it travels away from us.

Hubble's law may be correct but the equation to express this law the Hubble constant has proven time and time again to be incorrect. In fact, even today there is no consensus as to the correct values.



AUTHOR PUBLICATION YEAR HUBBLE CONSTANT UNIVERSE AGE

(billions of years)

Hubble 1929 500* 2

Harwit 1973 75 9

Pasachoff 1992 36 18

Gribbin 1993 26 25

Freedman 1994 65-99 8-12

Hawking 1994 43 15

Kuhn 1994 54 12

Matthews 1994 80 8

Ross 1994 38 17

Schmidt 1994 64-82 10-12

Wolff 1994 50 13

MacRobert 2003 71 13.7



And old Lawrence Krauss is throwing his guess into the hat as well. The Hubble constant seems to change from year to year.


Not only that, but it has proven time and time again that redshifts are not neccesarily attributable to the Doppler effect.


American astrophysicist Halton Arp, who worked with Edwin Hubble himself, found what he calls “enigmatic and disturbing cases,

 

[flacobey]

I've read through the whole thread and I have a question for you guys who don't not believe in a God.

When did you 1st dismiss the idea of an omnipotent omniscient God and what exactly made you come to this conclusion?
(if any of you already answered this in the 40+ pages sorry for asking again)

btw, I do believe in God

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by FlacoBey

I've read through the whole thread and I have a question for you guys who don't not believe in a God.

When did you 1st dismiss the idea of an omnipotent omniscient God and what exactly made you come to this conclusion?
(if any of you already answered this in the 40+ pages sorry for asking again)

btw, I do believe in God

See I don't believe in an Omnipotent omniscient God. I believe in the idea that something created us, because you can't not believe in that. Do I believe he has a Pius moral compass? No I believe whatever created us just kind of left us here. Miracles etc. are acts of random chance. Religion was created as a political tool, "God the good" may not exist, but "God the Creator" is an inevitable consequence of existence that no entity could explain, because where did he come from?

 Once we realize that the human mind has the ability to contemplate an infinite amount of ideas and that we should respect mother earth, because she provides everything that we NEED to survive, then we will be a lot better off as a people.

And the moment for me came Junior year after taking Philosophy of Religion. We were discussing  the similarities between every Religion and the incarnations of "God" and how it was all touched by human hands to fit the needs of that society. Karl Marx holds the idea that people invented the God, I think people just Invented the God that we always talk about when we say "God"

 

[kramer]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Kramer


Silly putty wrote





Now you're definitely trolling the hell out of me. 




You mean to tell me ancient romans stabbing at brains meant they knew what they were doing?




No sit your dumb ____ down. 




We have only in the last 100 years been able to effectively do brain surgery and know what the hell was actually going on.




Youre a fool. I won't even apologize for that. You're offending the doctors who devote their lives to actually understanding how things work with your blind and sheer ignorance. 




So god was just watching as millions died because the technology to save them didn't exist?




Isn't that a sadistic and sick bastard instead of an all loving being? THINK for a second!




So its more plausible for a god to point at stuff and make stuff?!


[color= rgb(0, 0, 255)]http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-surgery.php Read this. Romans did do some stuff with brain surgery. So now you're callin me a fool for nothin. And they didn't care if they died if they're goin to Heaven. How am I offending doctors?

[/color]

BRUH



ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!




I KNOW NEUROSURGEONS. I HAVE FREAKING WORK UNDER A FEW.




JUST BECAUSE THEY STUCK STUFF IN PEOPLES BRAINS DOESN'T MEAN THEY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.




WE DIDN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT PARTS OF THE BRAIN THAT HANDLED  VARIOUS ACTIONS OF NERVES AND DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESSES BEFORE 150 YEARS AGO!




US REPRESENTATIVE GABBY GIFFORDS IS ALIVE AFTER THAT ARIZONA SHOOTING BECAUSE OF MODERN NEUROSCIENCE...SHE TOOK A BULLET TO THE FREAKING DOME SON!




SERIOUSLY YOU'RE PISSING ME OFF WITH YOUR ______ IGNORANCE.




SHOW SOME REAL RESPECT TO THOSE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. 

How is this ignorant? What they did actually worked so obviously there was some science behind it. Just because they couldn't cure a bullet wound doesn't mean they didn't know some stuff.  Seems to me you just yell and dismiss everything that COULD be a plausible theory. Isn't it just as ignorant for you to completely dismiss the theory of God? Considering it hasn't really been disproven yet

 

[nikeairforce1]

Originally Posted by FlacoBey

I've read through the whole thread and I have a question for you guys who don't not believe in a God.

When did you 1st dismiss the idea of an omnipotent omniscient God and what exactly made you come to this conclusion?
(if any of you already answered this in the 40+ pages sorry for asking again)

btw, I do believe in God

My mom (an atheist) married my dad ( a catholic).
I was baptized then raised Catholic till I when I was about 7 or 8.  I prayed every night, went to church, and all that, but only because my dad told me too.  I even remember not praying at night (secretly of course

).  I don't even think I even knew what god was.  I was just doing whatever my dad made me do.

So then my parents separated and I stayed with my mom.  We never went to church, prayed or did anything religious again.  God never made himself apparent to me, and I had no other reason to believe that a god even existed.

If you want to know which moment I consciously decided that I didn't believe God exists, it was when I was in the Boy scouts (about 9 or 10 years old).  I liked it, except for the prayer to God every meeting.  I never prayed with them.  One day, they asked me why didn't I pray.  I told them I didn't believe in him.  They asked me what did I believe in then.  I told them "Science!"  I'm surprised that I was even able to answer a question like that when I was so young

 They left me alone after that and I left the Boy Scouts after I became a webelos.

So for me, god never existed, so I never even had the chance to dismiss him.   He was never proven to me that he existed in the first place.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by FlacoBey

I've read through the whole thread and I have a question for you guys who don't not believe in a God.

When did you 1st dismiss the idea of an omnipotent omniscient God and what exactly made you come to this conclusion?
(if any of you already answered this in the 40+ pages sorry for asking again)

btw, I do believe in God

I don't know if any of the other individuals can answer you, I am sure some have a turning points, but for me its been... like...  evolution. I am still in the process of my beliefs changing. I don't consider myself agnostic, and another member said I could be a deist.

But, anyways it's funny because in this thread I probably come off as a full on atheist, but I'm not. I am merely arguing facts about science because that is my passion, and I hate when people misuse it or state false information. It just seems like I am an atheist because I argue against individuals' false claims. I'm not even attacking or trying to disprove Gods existence, but it's funny that I don't have to and I still come of as being an atheist who is attacking religion.

Personally I don't fully not believe in God. I mean I already addressed this, but I grew up Catholic. I was religious. And, I don't know what happen really, but over the years I have grown more and more agnostic, and now I don't know what I am. It could be brainwashing, but I still hold on to believing in a creator even though as a scientist I know there is absolutely no evidence of that.

What I can say to your question is I know I have been greatly turned off by many of the atrocities that religion has cause and justifies.

I can also tell you one of the biggest things that turns me off is when I chose the career path I wanted to go into. I had and have so much passion for it, and I feel like not only am I contributing to our society's (the US and the World) knowledge but I am also helping others and wanting to save lives. With all that said, imagine how I feel when the Catholic church speaks out about being against my career, my passion in life. How can I have faith in something when it doesn't have faith in me? How can you say that I am doing something wrong, when in my eyes (and many others), it is so right? I am not harming anyone with my actions. I have such a great  passion to help others by giving them knowledge and life and you are going to tell me I am condemned for it? I have only given life not destroyed it, and yet you say I am a sinner?

 

[bboy1827]

Sidenote, for those science knots. A few things to Consider. Cartesian Skepticism, Humian Skepticism and the Pessimistic Metainduction of science. these three point to the idea that science may be...and probably is, just as wrong as the Bible. We see correlation, not a lot of causation. Any Philosopher of Science will hip you.

 

[nikeairforce1]

Kramer wrote: How is this ignorant? What they did actually worked so obviously there was some science behind it. Just because they couldn't cure a bullet wound doesn't mean they didn't know some stuff.  Seems to me you just yell and dismiss everything that COULD be a plausible theory. Isn't it just as ignorant for you to completely dismiss the theory of God? Considering it hasn't really been disproven yet
We're dismissing the idea that god(s) exists because there is no credible evidence for it.  So is it ignorant of me or sillyputty to dismiss it?  Nope.  We've looked at your "evidence", and it simply does not hold up to scrutiny.  
You say that the Bible is your evidence of God's existence.  But when we look at the history of the Bible, we can see that it has major parts of it are missing or purposely omitted, indicating a bias and agenda.  We can see that it has been translated and re-translated many times, indicating a bias and agenda.  We can see that edited, indicating a bias and agenda.  We can see that stories like Genesis have been proven wrong, indicating that the Bible is not infallible.

Your evidence for your God's existence simply do not hold up to scrutiny. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by FlacoBey

I've read through the whole thread and I have a question for you guys who don't not believe in a God.

When did you 1st dismiss the idea of an omnipotent omniscient God and what exactly made you come to this conclusion?
(if any of you already answered this in the 40+ pages sorry for asking again)

btw, I do believe in God

None of it ever made sense.
I had to come to grips with the fact that if such an entity DID create everything and knew everything then it knew and/or made me think the way I think and made me be so skeptical.

Plus my parents weren't born here so I have a different perspective on american government which makes me skeptical of most everything.

So I couldn't resist the urge for everything to make sense.

Add in the fact that i'm a science nerd and BINGO. 

BTW, you should read the whole thread. its worth it. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Kramer

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by Kramer


Silly putty wrote





Now you're definitely trolling the hell out of me. 




You mean to tell me ancient romans stabbing at brains meant they knew what they were doing?




No sit your dumb ____ down. 




We have only in the last 100 years been able to effectively do brain surgery and know what the hell was actually going on.




Youre a fool. I won't even apologize for that. You're offending the doctors who devote their lives to actually understanding how things work with your blind and sheer ignorance. 




So god was just watching as millions died because the technology to save them didn't exist?




Isn't that a sadistic and sick bastard instead of an all loving being? THINK for a second!




So its more plausible for a god to point at stuff and make stuff?!


[color= rgb(0, 0, 255)]http://www.unrv.com/culture/roman-surgery.php Read this. Romans did do some stuff with brain surgery. So now you're callin me a fool for nothin. And they didn't care if they died if they're goin to Heaven. How am I offending doctors?

[/color]

BRUH



ARE YOU FREAKING KIDDING ME?!




I KNOW NEUROSURGEONS. I HAVE FREAKING WORK UNDER A FEW.




JUST BECAUSE THEY STUCK STUFF IN PEOPLES BRAINS DOESN'T MEAN THEY KNEW ANYTHING ABOUT WHAT THEY WERE DOING.




WE DIDN'T EVEN FIGURE OUT PARTS OF THE BRAIN THAT HANDLED  VARIOUS ACTIONS OF NERVES AND DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESSES BEFORE 150 YEARS AGO!




US REPRESENTATIVE GABBY GIFFORDS IS ALIVE AFTER THAT ARIZONA SHOOTING BECAUSE OF MODERN NEUROSCIENCE...SHE TOOK A BULLET TO THE FREAKING DOME SON!




SERIOUSLY YOU'RE PISSING ME OFF WITH YOUR ______ IGNORANCE.




SHOW SOME REAL RESPECT TO THOSE WHO ACTUALLY KNOW WHAT THE HELL THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT. 

How is this ignorant? What they did actually worked so obviously there was some science behind it. Just because they couldn't cure a bullet wound doesn't mean they didn't know some stuff.  Seems to me you just yell and dismiss everything that COULD be a plausible theory. Isn't it just as ignorant for you to completely dismiss the theory of God? Considering it hasn't really been disproven yet

You are ignorant.
Plain and simple.

Did you know they had primitive batteries in Baghdad? 

Yeah whoopity doo!

It doesn't mean they knew everything we know about electricity now and how to manipulate it.

My point is, NONE OF THIS PROVES YOUR GOD EXISTS OR THAT YOUR BIBLE IS VALID.

Ancient romans and greeks developed a lot of democratic principles. Does that mean god exists too? 

KNOWING things in the past doesn't mean that any and everything is possible. 

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Sidenote, for those science knots. A few things to Consider. Cartesian Skepticism, Humian Skepticism and the Pessimistic Metainduction of science. these three point to the idea that science may be...and probably is, just as wrong as the Bible. We see correlation, not a lot of causation. Any Philosopher of Science will hip you.

Thus the problem with philosophy.
It panders to the possibilities rather than what can be proven.

I can make a hypothesis a connection between the fact hitler took a dump three days before he died to the notion that the price of milk is what it is tomorrow...but none of that would have any evidence so whats the point?

Philosophy is a dying craft. 

Science evolves. 

I appreciate it for its ability to reason out things clearly but it is failing because it refuses to evolve. It only exists to address what science hasn't been able to explain yet...

Look at the field of neuroscience...if it wasn't for people studying behavior, neuroscientists might not exist...in fact BECAUSE of neuroscience, things like psychology may no longer exist as we now know it. 

 

[bboy1827]

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Sidenote, for those science knots. A few things to Consider. Cartesian Skepticism, Humian Skepticism and the Pessimistic Metainduction of science. these three point to the idea that science may be...and probably is, just as wrong as the Bible. We see correlation, not a lot of causation. Any Philosopher of Science will hip you.

Thus the problem philosophy.
It panders to the possibilities rather than what can be proven.

I can hypothesis a connection between the fact hitler took a dump three days before he died to the notion that the price of milk is what it is tomorrow...but none of that would have any evidence so whats the point?

Philosophy is a dying craft. 

Science evolves. 

I appreciate it for its ability to reason out things clearly but it is failing because it refuses to evolve. It only exists to address what science hasn't been able to explain yet...

Look at the field of neuroscience...if it wasn't for people studying behavior, neuroscientists might not exist...in fact BECAUSE of neuroscience, things like psychology may no longer exist as we now know it

The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory.  I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything.  People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Sidenote, for those science knots. A few things to Consider. Cartesian Skepticism, Humian Skepticism and the Pessimistic Metainduction of science. these three point to the idea that science may be...and probably is, just as wrong as the Bible. We see correlation, not a lot of causation. Any Philosopher of Science will hip you.

I am sick and tired of people bringing up philosophical $#!% when discussing science. HOW THE EFF do these philosophical opinions, which undermined each other, prove that scientific reasoning and methodology is wrong?  Especially since they take into account old world views when philosophy had great connection to science. There is a reason why today, science majors are separate from philosophy majors, and why science majors are not required to take philosophy. 

Scientists observe correlation, and look for causation. For example we see increased breast cancer incidences when women have an increased expression of HER2 (correlation). But, we don't stop there, WTH? We go, how does this HER2 protein CAUSE the cancer and what CAUSES an increase in HER2 expression?  Back in the day (when your philosophical opinions were being created) we couldn't do this because of limited technology and information. So all we saw was correlation. There is a reason why we study systems and networks in science, such as: systems biology. Our technology has been limited over the years though (especially when your dumb philosophical ideas were thought of) but now we are creating the tech and just being able to getting into studying these systems of interaction and direct cause.

Are you one of those philosophy majors too? Or are you just bringing up topics to discuss? If you are the former then:

 

[1stwitit]

i guess ive never believed in god. i went to church and saw people running around catching the holy ghost, speaking in tongues, and passing out once the preacher placed his hand on their heads. i always felt weird about all of it. i would go up to get prayer, the preacher would place his hand on my head and i would think "am i supposed to pass out now?" ive never felt anything.

i also could never understand people who convert religions. my good friend switched his religion so he could marry his now wife. that doesnt make sense to me.

people who believe in god, what does it feel like to talk to god? does it resemble your conscience?

 

[blackxme]

Originally Posted by FlacoBey

I've read through the whole thread and I have a question for you guys who don't not believe in a God.

When did you 1st dismiss the idea of an omnipotent omniscient God and what exactly made you come to this conclusion?
(if any of you already answered this in the 40+ pages sorry for asking again)

btw, I do believe in God

Ever since I was a child( I was raised catholic) I sort of dissmissed the idea, I'd often ask hard questions relating to God, and the adults who I asked these questions to never seemed to come up with answers that really satisfied me. For a while I was in limbo about what exactly I believed and then as a teenager I became interested in science, especially astronomy. Science provided with more answers
than any religion ever could. Science gave me a new appreciation for the world around me. I still awe at the face that I'm nothing more than star dust. As far as the idea of God goes, I simply don't see any good reason to believe in a deity of any kind. I've looked for reasons to believe in God but they're never satisfying. I actually feel like my life has turned out better, than if I had continued to believe in something. I don't make excuses for anything in life, if there's are bumps in road I deal with them. If they're are challenges that seem like too much, I simply have to have faith in my abilities to over come them. If there good deeds to be done I try my best to do them, and don't look for any rewards in return i.e. heaven.When I do something that warrants credit or acknowledgment, I thank me for the hard work that I've done. I simply don't need a God. I don't need one for guidance, meaning, strength, or love. I have friends, family, and myself for those things.

 

[fade on you]

Just wanted to give props to sillyputty and pleasurephd for dropping mad knowledge and info in this thread.

Gentlemen

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by 1stWitIt

i guess ive never believed in god. i went to church and saw people running around catching the holy ghost, speaking in tongues, and passing out once the preacher placed his hand on their heads. i always felt weird about all of it. i would go up to get prayer, the preacher would place his hand on my head and i would think "am i supposed to pass out now?" ive never felt anything.

i also could never understand people who convert religions. my good friend switched his religion so he could marry his now wife. that doesnt make sense to me.

people who believe in god, what does it feel like to talk to god? does it resemble your conscience?

I suggest you read this short story by langston hughes (who was an atheist btw):




[table][tr][td]"Salvation"
         By Langston Huges
[/td][/tr][tr][td]
 

I was saved from sin when I was going on thirteen. But not really saved. It happened like this. There was a big revival at my Auntie Reed's church. Every night for weeks there had been much preaching, singing, praying, and shouting, and some very hardened sinners had been brought to Christ, and the membership of the church had grown by leaps and bounds. Then just before the revival ended, they held a special meeting for children, "to bring the young lambs to the fold." My aunt spoke of it for days ahead. That night I was escorted to the front row and placed on the mourners' bench with all the other young sinners, who had not yet been brought to Jesus.

My aunt told me that when you were saved you saw a light, and something happened to you inside! And Jesus came into your life! And God was with you from then on! She said you could see and hear and feel Jesus in your soul. I believed her. I had heard a great many old people say the same thing and it seemed to me they ought to know. So I sat there calmly in the hot, crowded church, waiting for Jesus to come to me.

The preacher preached a wonderful rhythmical sermon, all moans and shouts and lonely cries and dire pictures of hell, and then he sang a song about the ninety and nine safe in the fold, but one little lamb was left out in the cold. Then he said: "Won't you come? Won't you come to Jesus? Young lambs, won't you come?" And he held out his arms to all us young sinners there on the mourners' bench. And the little girls cried. And some of them jumped up and went to Jesus right away. But most of us just sat there.

A great many old people came and knelt around us and prayed, old women with jet-black faces and braided hair, old men with work-gnarled hands. And the church sang a song about the lower lights are burning, some poor sinners to be saved. And the whole building rocked with prayer and song.

Still I kept waiting to see Jesus.

Finally all the young people had gone to the altar and were saved, but one boy and me. He was a rounder's son named Westley. Westley and I were surrounded by sisters and deacons praying. It was very hot in the church, and getting late now. Finally Westley said to me in a whisper: "God damn! I'm tired o' sitting here. Let's get up and be saved." So he got up and was saved.

Then I was left all alone on the mourners' bench. My aunt came and knelt at my knees and cried, while prayers and song swirled all around me in the little church. The whole congregation prayed for me alone, in a mighty wail of moans and voices. And I kept waiting serenely for Jesus, waiting, waiting - but he didn't come. I wanted to see him, but nothing happened to me. Nothing! I wanted something to happen to me, but nothing happened.

I heard the songs and the minister saying: "Why don't you come? My dear child, why don't you come to Jesus? Jesus is waiting for you. He wants you. Why don't you come? Sister Reed, what is this child's name?"

"Langston," my aunt sobbed.

"Langston, why don't you come? Why don't you come and be saved? Oh, Lamb of God! Why don't you come?"

Now it was really getting late. I began to be ashamed of myself, holding everything up so long. I began to wonder what God thought about Westley, who certainly hadn't seen Jesus either, but who was now sitting proudly on the platform, swinging his knickerbockered legs and grinning down at me, surrounded by deacons and old women on their knees praying. God had not struck Westley dead for taking his name in vain or for lying in the temple. So I decided that maybe to save further trouble, I'd better lie, too, and say that Jesus had come, and get up and be saved.

So I got up.

Suddenly the whole room broke into a sea of shouting, as they saw me rise. Waves of rejoicing swept the place. Women leaped in the air. My aunt threw her arms around me. The minister took me by the hand and led me to the platform.

When things quieted down, in a hushed silence, punctuated by a few ecstatic "Amens," all the new young lambs were blessed in the name of God. Then joyous singing filled the room.

That night, for the first time in my life but one for I was a big boy twelve years old - I cried. I cried, in bed alone, and couldn't stop. I buried my head under the quilts, but my aunt heard me. She woke up and told my uncle I was crying because the Holy Ghost had come into my life, and because I had seen Jesus. But I was really crying because I couldn't bear to tell her that I had lied, that I had deceived everybody in the church, that I hadn't seen Jesus, and that now I didn't believe there was a Jesus anymore, since he didn't come to help me.
[/td][/tr][/table]

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by Fade On You

Just wanted to give props to sillyputty and pleasurephd for dropping mad knowledge and info in this thread.

Gentlemen

 

[pleasurephd]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by sillyputty

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Sidenote, for those science knots. A few things to Consider. Cartesian Skepticism, Humian Skepticism and the Pessimistic Metainduction of science. these three point to the idea that science may be...and probably is, just as wrong as the Bible. We see correlation, not a lot of causation. Any Philosopher of Science will hip you.

Thus the problem philosophy.
It panders to the possibilities rather than what can be proven.

I can hypothesis a connection between the fact hitler took a dump three days before he died to the notion that the price of milk is what it is tomorrow...but none of that would have any evidence so whats the point?

Philosophy is a dying craft. 

Science evolves. 

I appreciate it for its ability to reason out things clearly but it is failing because it refuses to evolve. It only exists to address what science hasn't been able to explain yet...

Look at the field of neuroscience...if it wasn't for people studying behavior, neuroscientists might not exist...in fact BECAUSE of neuroscience, things like psychology may no longer exist as we now know it

The pessimistic metainducton of science adresses this train of thought. You think when we thought the world was flat we knew it would be round? The whole point is the "absolutes" of science eventually fall by the wayside and the current generation thinks that their theories are correct. Gravity = Theory, Physical World = Theory.  I like philosophy because, as you said, it addresses things in which Science cannot address. Are we really here? Does this board actually exist, or is it some elaborate computer program to trick into believing there are other people on this board? A PhD stands for "Doctoris de Philosophea" which is a ode to the fact that we don't know anything, we assume a lot, we theorize a lot but we can't "prove" beyond the metaphysical boundary anything.  People +@@% on Philosophy but most have not had any Philosophy past 101. Argue with a true Philosopher and you, as a scientifically inclined mind would have to admit that there is no solid grounding in science. Top Scientist and Physicist i.e Steven Hawkin, admit that we see correlation as opposed to Causality, the latter is the basis of science.

That opinion takes into consideration HISTORY. Science and tech is NOT the same as it was even 10 years ago. It is an ever evolving and perfecting field that is growing at an exponential rate. You can't bring up historical facts of false information and try to say that discredits today's science information. Back then people didn't even test their theories you know what they did? Just pondered it.  And you know why?

BECAUSE BACK THEN SCIENTIST WERE PHILOSOPHERS. They weren't like scientists today. Science is not conducted the same way it use to be. This discredits your philosophical ideas because they only apply to old world science. They didn't test and use the scientific method. They just pondered.

Yes, its true that we could be wrong about somethings today, but we accept that, and are always trying to improve. Our technology limits us. And with our limited tech what we say is theory as of now is what fits best with our knowledge.

When do scientists ever say anything is absolute? Especially when discussing astrophysics?

Philosophy addresses it because science has rules that prevent us from spewing out BS, unlike philosophers who can say anything.

It's extremely idiotic to think that because some science back hundreds of years ago, which was untested, was wrong that science today, which is tested rigorously, is also wrong and only "correct to our generation"

And you know what? We can actually prove a lot of today's science. The very fact that your computer is working now, is proof. I agree that the far reaching things like quantum physics we can't but we'll get there. Don't you worry.

FYI I have a degree in phil too. Which is why in the beginning of my posts I brought up Kant.

 

[sillyputty]

Originally Posted by bboy1827

Originally Posted by FlacoBey

I've read through the whole thread and I have a question for you guys who don't not believe in a God.

When did you 1st dismiss the idea of an omnipotent omniscient God and what exactly made you come to this conclusion?
(if any of you already answered this in the 40+ pages sorry for asking again)

btw, I do believe in God

See I don't believe in an Omnipotent omniscient God. I believe in the idea that something created us, because you can't not believe in that. Do I believe he has a Pius moral compass? No I believe whatever created us just kind of left us here. Miracles etc. are acts of random chance. Religion was created as a political tool, "God the good" may not exist, but "God the Creator" is an inevitable consequence of existence that no entity could explain, because where did he come from?

 Once we realize that the human mind has the ability to contemplate an infinite amount of ideas and that we should respect mother earth, because she provides everything that we NEED to survive, then we will be a lot better off as a people.

And the moment for me came Junior year after taking Philosophy of Religion. We were discussing  the similarities between every Religion and the incarnations of "God" and how it was all touched by human hands to fit the needs of that society. Karl Marx holds the idea that people invented the God, I think people just Invented the God that we always talk about when we say "God"

Why do you have to assert that you were "created" ? 



What happened to saying "i don't know?" 




There are theories like abiogenesis (which I suggest you look into) or panspermia (says that small biological material from elsewhere may have landed on the earth via a meteor or so and divided) but nothing is concrete...there is only plausible evidence. 




So why can't life existing be a random chance?

Interesting argument...but still taking leaps to assert that the god of "creation" exists. 




I wholeheartedly agree. If we have to stay here, we should at least take care of it.




Here is the problem...a bunch of conservative religious folks think that "god" created the earth to sustain ONLY US HUMANS...this is a problem because they think that by destroying it, it will fix itself...and do so in a very short period of time




I'm NOT lying dude. I was shocked to learn this. Check it out when you can.




Aside from corporate interests to prevent regulation, there is an entire segment of the population in this country that rejects environmental endeavors for this reason.

So if different gods fit the needs for those societies, then why is the concept that people CREATED those gods that far off? If its such an arbitrary and ambiguous and non-standardized concept then surely its a subjective one left up to the biases of those that make it up and benefit from it. 




You're negating the statement you're trying to support.




If you can assert that we created the notion of god then how does that support the existence of that very god?